Monday, November 30, 2009

Harold Camping has recently taught that Jerome translated the Hebrew word "hyll" to be the angel "Lucifer" when it should read "praise"(root word) or "boaster(er)". "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!I think I am beginning to understand that this "son of the morning" is the same "son of perdition (or "Boaster" /"Lucifer"(?) who did not (at least at the time of the 7 seals being opened by Christ) know the time of the end. "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the son, but the Father." Since Jesus said that if you have seen Him (Jesus) you have seen the Father, this scripture cannot refer to the Son of man but the "son of perdion or "Boaster" Besides, Jesus told HIS disciples the sign to look for and what to do,so Christ had to know, but obviously this passage was not for them to know as they were commanded to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (begin the churches task).So the angels in Heaven could not know,neither mankind, and certainly NOT Satan. Can it be any clearer that Jerome obscured the "son" by naming Lucifer" incorrectly? Mr. Camping has stated that the Bible does not give angels proper names??? Any rebuttal?? Thanks - John

In context, Isaiah 14:12 is referring to the king of Babylon. See verses 4 and 22.

The Hebrew word translated "Lucifer" in the KJV (because of the Vulgate, no doubt) is "הילל" (hêylêl). It is a hapax word, that is to say, it occurs only once (here) in the Old Testament. Most translators that I've heard of think that it means brightness/morning star. But yes, it does come from "הלל" (hâlal) which can mean, among other things, "to boast."

The prophecy's immediate fulfillment was on the king of Babylon, but it may have an ultimate fulfillment against the man of sin. I don't pretend to have special insight on this matter.

As for naming angels, Jude 9 states: "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."

And Luke reports:

Luke 1:19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.

Luke 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

Which angel we had seen before:

Daniel 8:16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.

Daniel 9:21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

Furthermore "Satan" is the proper name of a fallen angel (there are too many passages here that use that name, to list them all). And he may be the same or different (it is sometimes hard to be sure) from another fallen angel named Abaddon (Hebrew) or Apollyon (Greek).

Revelation 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Some have claimed that Michael is actually another name for Jesus. Regardless of that, Gabriel is certainly the name of an angel and Satan and Apollyon are names of fallen angels (or of just one fallen angel), notwithstanding Mr. Camping's teachings.

3 comments:

Thank you for responding. In luke chapter 1 Zacharias is visited by "an angel of the Lord" and is given a prophetic proclamation and poor Zacharias does not believe it and is rendered speechless by the commandment of Gabriel. Do "angels"(or "messengers") have authority on their own volition to command such a thing? Also in the OT Samson's mother and father recieve a similar visitation by "the angel of the Lord" and they believed that they would die because they understood correctly that if you see the LORD then you die - for no one can see the LORD and live. But the Bible says that the LORD accepted the offering and spared their life. So I am of the understanding that any time the Bible says and "angel of the LORD" is is God in the flesh, in what ever appearance He choses. Much like Melchesidec showed Himself to Abraham. Your thoughts? Thanks - John

As to Samson's parents, sometimes it appears that the "angel of the LORD" is actually a reference to the second person of the Trinity in a pre-incarnation manifestation or epiphany. Thus, for example, we see indications in that context that the "angel of the LORD" was God.

I'm not sure why you bring up Melchizedek. We would normally just think of him as a man.

Copyright Notice - (C) 2006-2011 TurretinFan

This blog tries to comply with international standards of "fair use" and "fair dealing" in its use of copied material. If you feel that a use of your material is "unfair" contact the blog owner: contact information is available on the blog owner's profile.Contrariwise, those same international standards permit you to make "fair use" and "fair dealing" with the material presented here.More